What are the conflicts between atheism and science?

I have only just dipped my feet into this thread and you are talking like I was here already. Are you questioning me about a different thread? I am not sure of the context running here.
 
universaldistress said:
I have only just dipped my feet into this thread and you are talking like I was here already. Are you questioning me about a different thread? I am not sure of the context running here.
Click to expand...

You were here 30 seconds ago and more. What is wrong with talking you like you already came? You technically did just come in. Your inside the thread.

I am telling you that we don't need to continue atheist versus science. In the end, it really doesn't matter. All perceptions stem to fact. That is the flaw in fact. Some perceptions are not the same for two people. Maybe those people instead of arguing may find out that both views are right. Agreed? It is possible.

That is all I am stating. Both views exist. Everything is based on perception. If fact is perception, maybe we might learn something from someone else from their perception. No harm in taking in their perception. We might find ourselves wrong later on and might actually live a happier life. =]

I dislike chaos. I am not saying you are creating chaos, but I just like ending arguments between religion and atheist.

Everyone has something to offer. I am sure you have realized this during your life. You can be Christian...

But you might offer some logical advice to an atheist.

And vise versa. In the end, we are co-existing.

So take advantage of the intellectual power we can gain from it. You don't have to agree to it. Just put it in reserves and agree to disagree until you see what they meant. We find ourselves arguing against people without realizing...

This is a forum about Atheism and science conflicts. Can we get back on track? Perception is a flaw for atheism. It is a flaw for every religion as well. It is also a flaw for even my own belief system.
 
Even now, I am putting our discussion into reserves. I am creating a theory to prove you right. I don't have a concept formed for that, only contradictions to it. =]

I like having multiple views on things. It causes me to be socially flexible. x]
 
firstly i am not a christian lol. did you not read my sarcasm? secondly i am now going to bed so i cannot play any longer today ;)

have a good one.

PS this is forum for science. This sub-forum is general philosophy. Don't try to stop the debate. that would be intellectual death. Since i have been on this forum battling intelligent people of all descriptions it has reinvigorated my analytical mind. Something i need If I am ever gonna write up my thesis. let the goodtimes roll. But yeah, the differences between atheism and science are a bit of a waste of time.
 
IceLight020 said:
Even now, I am putting our discussion into reserves. I am creating a theory to prove you right. I don't have a concept formed for that, only contradictions to it. =]

I like having multiple views on things. It causes me to be socially flexible. x]
Click to expand...

Theory to prove what right?
 
universaldistress said:
firstly i am not a christian lol. did you not read my sarcasm?
Click to expand...

Never said you were. ;)

universaldistress said:
PS this is forum for science. This sub-forum is general philosophy. Don't try to stop the debate. that would be intellectual death. Since i have been on this forum battling intelligent people of all descriptions it has reinvigorated my analytical mind. Something i need If I am ever gonna write up my thesis. let the goodtimes roll. But yeah, the differences between atheism and science are a bit of a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Ironically I was hoping it didn't stop. x]

That is why I research against my own views. xD
 
Alex3 said:
this is just a belief which denies the existence of God.
Click to expand...

Kid, atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).

We get tired of repeating this, we really do. There's no denial involved.

You yourself were an atheist before someone convinced you your god existed for instance. Reconcile that thought with yourself before posting again.

Science is vivid proof of it's existence.
Click to expand...

What scientific qualifications/experience do you have?
 
IceLight020 said:
But how can you disprove something that may have never existed anyway in that specific area?
...
You cannot prove or disprove faith. So how can you prove or disprove God?
Click to expand...
Seriously - go back and read my posts... You're trying to pick an argument where none exists.

For the last time: I did not say... I do not say... that science disproves God. Someone (not me) commented that "Science is vivid proof of God's existence" and I rebutted them by paraphrasing the scientific method and commenting that I saw no proof of God's existence in that method.
That was it.
End of story.

I really can't see what you're trying to do by arguing with me on this given that we both have the same view that the question of God is outside the purview of science... and can thus be considered purely a matter of faith. The only argument between us is one you have created through your misunderstanding of what I wrote.
 
gmilam said:
When are people going to accept that science is neutral on the subject of "god"? Science is the study of the natural world. Anything outside the natural world (IF there is anything) is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the best point yet made in this thread.
 
glaucon said:
Perhaps the best point yet made in this thread.
Click to expand...

Though the nature of science if neutral to that which resides outside the natural realm, it doesn't mean that the evidence provided to us by science is not relevant to that which it does not directly address.
 
Sarkus said:
Seriously - go back and read my posts... You're trying to pick an argument where none exists.

For the last time: I did not say... I do not say... that science disproves God. Someone (not me) commented that "Science is vivid proof of God's existence" and I rebutted them by paraphrasing the scientific method and commenting that I saw no proof of God's existence in that method.
Click to expand...

I never said you did.

Sorry about the mess. I can just think in multiple perceptions and I am able to rebut what I think. That in turn makes me able to rebut others that side with me. It is something I need to work on evening out.

I was going to argue about perception and other things in combination but I see that this might be getting annoying to you so I will stop.

My mind works like the Liar's Paradox. Excuse it please.
 
IceLight020 said:
I was going to argue about perception and other things in combination but I see that this might be getting annoying to you so I will stop.
Click to expand...

It is fact that a perception is about something in the mind, which may either be from something real or of only imagination.
 
Arkonos said:
Though the nature of science if neutral to that which resides outside the natural realm, it doesn't mean that the evidence provided to us by science is not relevant to that which it does not directly address.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you are then assuming that there is such a domain as "outside the natural realm"...

You point however, on 'neutrality' is well noted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top